TPP's Copyright Term Extension Isn't Made for Artists—It's Made By and For Big Content Companies

The following comment was written by Canadian filmmaker, Andrew Hunter, sent to party leaders asking them to come out against the 20-year copyright term extension in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and stand for fair and balanced innovation policy. He emailed this comment as part of our TPP's Copyright Trap campaign.

I am writing to express my serious concern that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement's intellectual property chapter may extend Canada's current length of copyright.

I'm a filmmaker, cinematographer and camera assistant by trade. Copyright is the foundation of how I earn a living. However I see the policy of copyright maximalism that is espoused by dominant players in both Hollywood and Canada as being detrimental to the health of our industry.

Copyright law should uphold a carefully crafted balance of public and private rights that encourages creation, while providing incentives for innovation and access for education, libraries, and other socially beneficial purposes. Excessive copyright term lengths undermine this objective. The foundations of culture is our ability to share, re-tell and rework stories.

Copyright maximalism is the belief that:

All of one's work is original.

Copyright is an innate right similar to human rights, which should be protected and expanded at any opportunity.

This is ironic as we in the film industry utilize references, be they visual, audio or written word, to communicate ideas and intent before we are "on the day" and actually have to execute the plan. Culture is the sum of the modulation of different mediums to convey human expression. Copyright maximalists do not acknowledge this contradiction, as it serves their interests.

In Canada, as in most countries of the world, the term lasts the lifetime of the creator plus 50 years after their death, or 70 years from the date of publication. The TPP however, threatens to override this and extend our terms by at least another 20 years, even for works that have already entered the public domain.

Extending copyright does not help artists, creatives and those people who rely on *creating*, rather than exploiting, copyrightable work for a living. Like fashion, much of the work that puts food on my table in fact encourages sharing and copying, as it is work meant to be disseminated as far and wide as possible.

Those who do stand to gain from an copyright extension are those who profit from the importation of foreign works for distribution in Canada or those who posses the rights to already profitable properties.

Do not for a moment believe that it will help emerging filmmakers like myself, or my colleagues, become successful. There are much greater hurdles to just creating a work for someone like myself to be concerned than whether an extra 20 years after my death my descendants will help them.

Do not trot out the Canadian old boys club of "artists" to promote what benefits the people they sold their rights to.

Our country has long resisted previous efforts by to lengthen its terms beyond what is required by existing international law, namely, the Berne Convention; most recently during the comprehensive consultations that led to the passage of the Copyright Modernization Act in 2012.

That's why I urge you to stand up for Canadians' right to fair and balanced innovation policy, and speak out against this unwarranted copyright term extension in the TPP. It is not in the interests of film technicians, producers or the general public.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Andrew Hunter

~

If you are a Canadian, we urge you to email party leaders and call on them to speak out against the copyright term extension in the TPP.

Related Updates

Fundación Karisma, Colombia’s leading digital rights organization, just launched its fourth annual ¿Dónde Estan Mis Datos? report in collaboration with EFF. The results are even more encouraging than the ones seen in 2017, with significant improvement in transparency - five companies published transparency reports, and four publicly...

Today, EU negotiators in Strasbourg struggled to craft the final language of the Copyright in the Single Digital Market Directive, in their last possible meeting for 2019. They failed, thanks in large part to the Directive’s two most controversial clauses: Article 11, which requires paid licenses for linking to news...

EFF, as part of a coalition of over sixty other human rights groups led by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International —still have questions for Sundar Pichai, Google’s CEO. Leaks and rumors continue to spread from Google about “Project Dragonfly,” a secretive plan to create a...

The latest news from Brussels: Italy is not happy with Article 13 or Article 11, and wants them gone. What is going on with Europe’s meme-filtering Article 13 (and the hyperlink-meddling Article 11)? After the proposals sneaked over the finish line in a close European Parliamentary vote in July, the...

EFF is introducing a new Coders' Rights project to connect the work of security research with the fundamental rights of its practitioners throughout the Americas. The project seeks to support the right of free expression that lies at the heart of researchers' creations and use of computer code to...

Brazil’s federal elections are set for October 7, 2018, but the fear that “fake news” online might unfairly interfere with the electoral process has been looming over the country for far longer than this year’s campaign. In June, the President of the Superior Electoral Court declared such interference ...

On September 13, after a five-year legal battle, the European Court of Human Rights said that the UK government’s surveillance regime—which includes the country’s mass surveillance programs, methods, laws, and judges—violated the human rights to privacy and to freedom of expression. The court’s opinion is the culmination of...

The Australian government has ignored the expertise of researchers, developers, major tech companies, and civil liberties organizations by charging forward with a disastrous proposal to undermine trust and security for technology users around the world. On September 10, the Australian government closed the window for receiving feedback about its ...

Five of the largest U.S. technology companies pledged support this year for a dangerous law that makes our emails, chat logs, online videos and photos vulnerable to warrantless collection by foreign governments. Now, one of those companies has voiced a meaningful pivot, instead pledging support for its users...